print

Political Provocations in the Electoral Debates of U.S. Presidential Candidates

Tumskiy S.V.,

MGIMO University, Moscow, Russia, statum@mail.ru

elibrary_id: 717325 |

DOI: 10.17976/jpps/2021.06.10

Rubric: Psychological Discourse: Personalities of Leaders and Provocation as a Political Strategy

For citation:

Tumskiy S.V. Political Provocations in the Electoral Debates of U.S. Presidential Candidates. – Polis. Political Studies. 2021. No. 6. https://doi.org/10.17976/jpps/2021.06.10

Abstract

Provocations, in various politicians’ speeches, aimed at forming a favorable public opinion, play an increasingly noticeable role in the current political processes of the world, particularly in the United States. This article examines the use of provocations and manipulative techniques in electoral debates with an emphasis on Donald Trump’s speeches in the pre-election televised debates in 2020. For the study, we analyzed the full text of Trump’s and Biden’s speeches that they made during the pre-election televised debates in October 2020, including two communicative situations with the use of provocations, as separate case studies. The paper uses the methods of grounded theory, including semantic, conceptual, discursive, content analysis, document analysis (data from the media), and case studies. Semantic and conceptual analysis made it possible to single out the implicit meanings, and highlight the cases of the use of provocations by participants in the televised debates. Statistical analysis made it possible to determine the frequency of the use of provocative techniques by the communicants, to group the cases where provocations were used. The study revealed cases of the use of provocations within the framework of communicative tactics of justification, victimization, virtualization of reality, creation of false images, and accusations of an implicit nature. The author concluded that the active use of provocations by politicians in the electoral discourse can be instrumental in strengthening their positions in the pre-election struggle, in the absence of clear advantages over the rival. On the other hand, the high frequency of provocations and manipulative-provocative techniques in the speech of politicians can create reputational risks, and reduce the likelihood of a provocative candidate winning the election. 

Keywords

electoral discourse, political discourse, provocation, manipulation, communication strategy, public opinion.

 Full Text 

Boudana S., Segev E. 2017a. Theorizing Provocation Narratives as Communication Strategies. – Communication Theory. Vol. 27. No. 4. P. 329-346. https://doi.org/10.1111/comt.12119

Boudana S., Segev E. 2017b. The Bias of Provocation Narratives in International News. International Journal of Press/Politics. Vol. 22. No. 3. P. 314-332. https://doi.org/10.1177/1940161217704968

Charmaz K. 2014. Constructing Grounded Theory (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Glaser B., Strauss A. 2009. The Discovery of Grounded Theory: Strategies for Qualitative Research (4th ed.). New Brunswick: Aldine.

Luhmann N. 1979. Trust and Power. Chichester: Wiley. 228 p.

Strauss A., Corbin J. 1990. Basics of Qualitative Research: Grounded Theory Procedures and Techniques. Newbury Park, CA: Sage Publications.

Bucyk E. 2016. Features of the Formation of the Image of a Politician in the Pre-election Race: The Gender Aspect. – Bulletin of the Peoples’ Friendship University of Russia. Series: Theory of language. Semiotics. Semantics. No. 1. P. 91-99. (In Russ.)

Chugrov S. V. 2017. Post-Truth: Transformation of Political Reality or Self-Destruction of Liberal Democracy? – Polis. Political Studies. No. 2. P. 42-59. (In Russ.) https://doi.org/10.17976/jpps/2017.02.04

Danilova A. 2009. Manipulirovanie slovom v sredstvakh massovoi informatsii [Verbal Manipulation in Mass Media]. Moscow: Dobrosvet, KDU. 234 p. (In Russ.)

Dmitriev A., Zadorozhnjuk I. 2016. Interpretation of a Provocation Phenomenon: The Trajectory of Words (History of Arts and Literature Cases). – Sotsial’nyi mir cheloveka [Social World of a Man]. Izhevsk: ERGO. P. 34-37. (In Russ.)

Dmitriev A. 2016. Provokatsiya: sfery kommunikativnogo proyavleniya [Provocation. Spheres of Communicative Manifestаtion]. Ed. by A. Dmitriev. Moscow: Rusajns. P. 7-17. (In Russ.)

Dmitriev A., Sychev A. 2017. Provokatsiya. Vvedenie v teoriyu [Provocation. Introduction to the Theory]. Moscow: Yurait. 338 p. (In Russ.)

Freik N. 2006. The Concept of Trust in P. Sztompka’s Research. – Sociological Studies. No. 11. P. 10-18. (In Russ.)

Glukhova A. 2016a. On the Issue of the Role of Provocation in Politics. – Vlast’. No. 3. P. 92-96. (In Russ.)

Glukhova A. 2016b. Political Provocation: Nature, Context, Variety. – Provocation: Spheres of Communicative Manifestation. Ed. by А. Dmitriev. Moscow: Rusajns. P. 39-72. (In Russ.)

Issers O. 2009. The Strategy of Speech Provocation in Public Dialogue. – Russian Language in Scientific Coverage. No. 2. P. 92-104. (In Russ.)

Nazarova E. 2017. Provocations in the Media and Their Perception by the Youth Audience. – Communicology. Vol. 5. No. 3. P. 159-168. (In Russ.)

Pashentsev E. 2014. Provocation as an Element of Us Strategic Communication: The Experience of Ukraine. – Public administration. Electronic bulletin. No. 44. P. 149-175. (In Russ.)

Toshhenko Zh. 2015. Fantomy rossiiskogo obshchestva [Phantoms of Russian Society]. Moscow: Centr social’nogo prognozirovanija i marketinga. 669 p. (In Russ.)

Tumskiy S. 2017. Provocation as a Social Action: The Definition of the Phenomenon in the Context of Cross-Disciplinary Analysis. – Sociodynamics. No. 8. P. 1-11. (In Russ.) https://doi.org/10.25136/2409-7144.2017.8.23349 

See also: